The court dismissed a petition for suspension of life imprisonment pending the disposal of a main criminal appeal. The court held that eye-witness testimony sustained the conviction and the petition was not a fit case for suspension.
Petition under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019 Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, Male/33 years, S/o. Mani, No.26/53, Pothiamman Koil Street, Korattur, Chennai 600 080. ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused (A1) Vs The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai 600 053. (Crime No. 439 of 2015) ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed in S.C. No. 241 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District,
1/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
pending disposal of the main criminal appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mrs. M. Prabhavathi, (Additional Public Prosecutor)
O R D E R
(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
sought to be challenged by the 1st accused/ convict by filing this petition.
elaborately argue that there is no motive for murdering the Councillor namely the deceased as no witness spoke about the motive. The second point he would argue is
that there are lot of discrepancies with regard to presence of the son of the victim,
2/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
as P.W.2- wife of the victim spoke that she and her daughter alone were present. That apart, P.W.4 did not speak that he has seen the murder of victim. There are discrepancies in his evidence with regard to wearing of helmet by the accused at the time of assault. No parade was conducted by the Police to identify the accused. In the absence of any motive, the Trial Court erroneously convicted the petitioner and therefore, he seeks for suspension of sentence.
appearing on behalf of the respondent very sharply reacted stating that it is a cruel day light murder having committed by the accused along with four others. There are discrepancies in the evidence. The presence of the victim's son has been spoken by P.W.4 and P.W.5, independent witnesses and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage out of that. She would also submit that there are eye-witnesses viz., P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 for having witnessed the murder. Therefore, the
sentence cannot be suspended.
3/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
was a cruel murder having committed in the day light. There are independent witnesses who spoke about commission of offence. Though Mr.V.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that based on the evidence of P.W.2- wife of the victim that she and her daughter alone were present at the time of occurrence in her residence, the independent witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 categorically stated that the son of the victim- P.W.3 was also present at the
time of occurrence. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be possible to look into all these discrepancies, if at all.
13.09.2019, after four years. Nowadays, usually acquittal is the order and conviction is exception, as no person come forward to support the prosecution case,
4/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
even though they witness cruel murders and that is the reason why our criminal justice delivery system is getting collapsed. Unless the citizens are responsible and they feel that they are also part of the society and come forward to give evidence of what they witness, it is impossible to give conviction by this Court. In the absence
of any evidence, the Court is unable to give conviction. However, the public, without understanding the absence of evidence, find fault with the court orders which has become the order of the day.
convicts are able to come out, that will definitely bring down the image of the Courts in the minds of the people. Even otherwise, it is not a case for suspension of sentence. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
5/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
(N.K.K.,J.) (V.M.V.,J.) 27.07.2020
gsa
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
The Inspector of Police,
T2, Ambattur Estate Police Station,
Chennai 600 053.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
6/7
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. AND V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa
Crl. M.P. No. 4463 of 2020
in
Crl. A. No. 779 of 2019
Dated: 27.07.2020
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to suspend the life imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant while the main criminal appeal is pending.
Whether discrepancies in prosecution evidence warrant suspension of the appellant’s sentence despite eye-witness testimony.
Suresh Kumar @ Suresh
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T2, Ambattur Estate Police Station
N. Kirubakaran
V. M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
